The Relationships Between State Health Department Practitioners’ Perceptions of Organizational Supports and Evidence-Based Decision-Making Skills

Abstract

Objectives Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) allows public health practitioners to implement effective programs and policies fitting the preferences of their communities. To engage in EBDM, practitioners must have skills themselves, their agencies must engage in administrative evidence-based practices (A-EBPs), and leaders must encourage the use of EBDM. We conducted this longitudinal study to quantify perceptions of individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs, as well as the longitudinal associations between the 2. Methods An online survey completed among US state health department practitioners in 2016 and 2018 assessed perceptions of respondents’ skills in EBDM and A-EBPs. We used χ2 tests, t tests, and linear regressions to quantify changes over time, differences by demographic characteristics, and longitudinal associations between individual skills and A-EBPs among respondents who completed both surveys (N = 336). Results Means of most individual EBDM skills and A-EBPs did not change significantly from 2016 to 2018. We found significant positive associations between changes in A-EBPs and changes in EBDM skill gaps: for example, a 1-point increase in the relationships and partnerships score was associated with a narrowing of the EBDM skill gap (β estimate = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.61). At both time points, perceived skills and A-EBPs related to financial practices were low. Conclusions Findings from this study can guide the development and dissemination of initiatives designed to simultaneously improve individual and organizational capacity for EBDM in public health settings. Future studies should focus on types of strategies most effective to build capacity in particular types of agencies and practitioners, to ultimately improve public health practice.

Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking

“…Another framework that has been applied is Mazzucca et al's framework that states: "As people shape organizations and organizations support individual skill development, overall capacity for evidence-based public health can improve." [11] (see Figure 2). Even though research capacity has been targeted by a few studies in the capacity building area, it is still a neglected area of policy analysis and research efforts to date (e.g., hard to measure and lacking agreement on definition) [6,7,46].…”

“…Health policymaking should be well-informed and supported by the best available research evidence [ 6 , 10 ] and policymakers’ expertise. At the same time, community characteristics, needs, and preferences should be considered [ 11 ]. This approach, known as Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM), is rooted in evidence-based public health [ 3 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].…”

“…The literature suggests that individual policymakers are critical participants in decisions regarding the use of evidence, and that these decisions are influenced by personal qualities and capacities [ 11 , 41 , 43 ]. Therefore, one of the most crucial enabling factors in using research evidence in public health policymaking might be research capacity.…”

“…However, it is not only the policymakers’ research capacities that influence the integration of research evidence into health policies. Aside from the knowledge exchange and co-creation with researchers, organizational system support for research engagement actions in health policymaking (e.g., tools and systems) also plays a relevant role and has a significant influence in EIPM [ 9 , 11 ]. Hence, it is important to consider the specific contexts in which policymakers develop and implement health policies [ 6 , 7 , 45 ].…”

“…In this article, we use the SPIRIT Action Framework (see Figure 1 ) to assess policymakers’ research capacities and the engagement in and use of research. Another framework that has been applied is Mazzucca et al’s framework that states: “As people shape organizations and organizations support individual skill development, overall capacity for evidence-based public health can improve.” [ 11 ] (see Figure 2 ).…”